MaltaToday reports Chris Said’s concern over Benna’s price hikes on certain types of milk. In its article MT states that the parliamentary secretary will be asking the competition authority to investigate the rise in prices as“the operator could be enjoying a dominant position in the market.” Now the problem here is that a “dominant position” per se is not at all illegal under competition law. The question of whether Benna has a dominant position in the market for milk or in the sub-market for particular types of milk only comes into play if Benna has in any way “abused” of the dominant position. One would hope that the distinction between the existence of dominance and the abuse thereof is clear in the PS’s mind and that the problem is only in the reporting made by MaltaToday.
Joseph Muscat has renounced the right to a salary increase that is due to him after a decision taken in parliament in 2008. Apparently half the parliament was unaware of this decision – a side-issue that begs the question of “Where the f**k were the guardians of the opposition benches that day?” Even if we do grant the point of temporary lapse of attention to the totality of the opposition benches what we have here is an opposition leader and two of his party MPs deciding to not take the salary increase (honorarium).
***ADDENDUM***
Since we have no problem admitting where we were wrong, there is no “side-issue” to speak of. The decision for the new honoraria was apparently a Cabinet decision and not one taken in parliament – though we still harbour doubts about whether or not a law has to be changed for it to come into effect. The answer to our hypothetical question (Where the f was labour?) is therefore “not in the Cabinet”. We stand by the rest of our argument though – the scale of salaries is not a measure for assessing politicians’ performance. If it were so, 100% of the people who have moved to work with the institutions in Europe would theoretically make better parliamentarians. An AST1 (entry level grade) earns as much as a local (national for Privitelli) MP.
***
Cool. Sort of. As in while you can immediately understand how this latest gimmick fits in with New Labour’s fetish with salaries (remember the PQ about people earning more than the President) it is hard to reconcile this position of abnegation with anything beyond the making of a puerile point. They’re waiting for us to say it. Just in time for Christmas: would you dare criticise Labour’s leader for not pocketing extra MP dosh?
Well. The answer is Yes. J’accuse Can. For the argument we made back when the presidential PQ was posed still holds strong. It is not how much you are paid that is really important but the respect you gain by justifying whatever salary it is and doing your damn job. Even if Joseph Muscat were to suddenly get a bout of fantastic altruism and half his salary I don’t give a flying copulation. It is what he is doing while warming that chair in parliament as a representative of the people’s alternative to government that counts. I will judge him by his programmes and projects and NOT by his salary.
His alternative budget was ludicrous and only won some points because of Bondi’s hash of a programme – Bondi’s slip was Muscat’s gain in public perception. Which did not mean that Muscat’s grandiose faff that is an excuse for future planning will actually work. Meanwhile Muscat’s minions are busy on facebook reminding us how the Great Leader forwent so many euros increase from the mouths of his own babes in order to save 120,000€ that can now be spent on childcare or some other fantasmagorical mental masturbatory pink socialist idea.
The truth is that it won’t. -be spent on childcare, or on a new sleigh for Santa or whatever they might dream of in Mile End. Money spending and planning is called budgeting and that is up to the government of the day to do. To get to even write the budget you have to be elected to government. With a plan. A concrete one that does not involve not putting money in one’s pockets like some latter day St Nicholas but rather involves ideas on how our economy can survive the current climate and hopefully how money can be justly distributed into the pockets of the hard working and the deserving.
So. Bravo for Joseph for foregoing the salary increase voted by parliament. He seems to be of the type who revel in a warm round of applause and gasps of awe at his magnanimity. It is a pity that his performance as the generator of alternative government remains dismally hopeless for those who care to look beyond the antics of the latest trend in salary scale gimmicks.
Per Una Lira
(originale di Lucio Battisti – versione youtube di Giuliano Palma & the Bluebeaters)
Per una lira
io vendo tutti i sogni miei
per una lira
ci metto sopra pure lei
E un affare sai
basta ricordare
di non amare
di non amare
Amico caro,
se c’è qualcosa che non va
se ho chiesto troppo,
tu dammi pure la metà
A un affare sai
basta ricordare
di non amare, no
di non amare
no, no, no, nooo
Per una lira
io vendo tutto ciò che ho
Per una lira
io so che lei non dice no
Ma se penso che
Tu sei un buon amico
non te lo dico oh no
Meglio per te
Our “President Emeritus” (sic – the Times) hath spoken: “It is good we are still bound to the principle that marriage is for life and we should be proud of this” – quoth he. Dr Fenech Adami reminded the world that marriage was a contract that bound the individuals for life and this was the principle at stake in the divorce debate. More importantly he rubbished the very strong pro-divorce argument that Malta only has the Philippines as it’s divorce-less partner (should I say wife?).
If you believed men like our “President Emeritus” you’d probably believe that the pro-divorce movement is only in favour of introducing divorce in order to be like others and not for the simple reason that they consider the right to marriage to essentially mean the right to a happy marriage in the long run.
Of course every marriage has its ups and downs but the Vatican-Malta-Philippine triangle would have it that no matter how “down” is “down” in that ups and downs bit, the “till death do us part” has to trump every other consideration. Fenech Adami is right – the basic principle at stake is the whole concept of indissolubility – marriage is marriage for life. Like giving animals as presents: it’s not just for Christmas/weddings but for life.
We all know that being pro-divorce does not mean wanting to better the Philippines or the Vatican State. It means opening a door to those people whose marriage has irretrievably broken down. It means a fresh start. It may not be a civil right in the strict sense of the term but living a happy marriage is an essential building block that inspires many of the civil rights recognised universally. Hiding behind closed doors while the broken couples continue to experience hideous realities without ever seeing a breakthrough is what Fenech Adami is proud of.
In terms of civil rights you can call it sweet F.A.
I wonder what the “President Emeritus” would make of this front page story on l-Orizzont:
TEJPS JĦINU SEPARAZZJONI
Il-Qorti tal-Familja laqgħet it-talba ta’ mara għas-separazzjoni minn ma’ żewġha, wara li fost oħrajn semgħet tejps li fihom ir-raġel jinstema’ jidgħi u joffendi lil martu. It-tejps kienu rrekordjati minn oħt il-mara li toqgħod fl-istess triq t’oħtha.
Il-mara talbet għas-separazzjoni għax skont hi żewġha ma kienx jistmaha. Skont hi, wara xahrejn miżżewġin huwa faqa’ l-bieb tal-kamra tal-banju, tliet snin wara kisser il-bieb tal-kamra tas-sodda u jumejn wara t-tkissir tal-bieb beda jkisser affarijiet fil-‘wall unit’.
B’kollox qalet li bidlet il-bieb tal-kamra tal-banju tliet darbiet, is-siġġijiet tal-kċina darbtejn u l-ħġieġ tal-‘wall unit’ kemm-il darba.Hija sostniet li binhom kien iqum bil-lejl jibki tant li kellha tieħdu għand il-professur li qalilha li binha kellu biża’ kbira.
Minbarra hekk sostniet li żewġha kien jheddidha li joqtolha, jqattagħha, jitfagħha f’għalqa u ħadd ma jsibha, li kien joffendiha b’ommha mejta u li kienet tarah f’għalqa ta’ ħuh ma’ tfajla u li darba sabitlu qalziet ta’ mara li ma kienx tagħha. Hija ppreżentat ukoll ittra li r-raġel tagħha allegatament kiteb lil turista Ġermaniża fejn jgħidilha li jħobbha.
Fil-kawża xehdu wkoll xi ġirien, fosthom familjari tal-mara, li lkoll qalu li kienu jisimgħu lir-raġel jidħol lura d-dar fis-sakra u kienu jisimgħuh jidgħi, jgħajjas, isabbat u jitkellem ħażin. Fost dawn kien hemm oħtha li ippreżentat it-‘tapes’ fejn ir-raġel jinstema joffendi lil oħtha.
Xhud importanti kien it-tifel tal-koppja fejn dan qal li sa minn meta kellu sitt snin jiftakar lil missieru jirritorna d-dar fis-sakra, jidgħi, isabbat u jkisser. It-tifel qal li huwa kien jiekol fil-kamra tiegħu għax kien jibża’ jinżel isfel minħabba missieru u li missieru kien jgħajjru, joffendih u anke jgaralu l-affarijiet. (continue reading here)
Tinkwetax hanini. Ahseb kemm hemm nisa bhalek fil-Filippini. Dawk ukoll ghandhom kont il-bank biex ihallsu ghall-bibien. U meta tisma’ r-ragel jidghi ghid talba ghar-ruhu u ghal min ghandu mejjet.. fejn taf forsi ghad xi darba jilluminawhom lil tal-Vatikan?
As far as virals go nothing could be more remotely uninteresting than the bland anti-circus promo that is going around on Facebook. Thank god for creative fellas like Cedric Vella who has breathed some life and humour into the whole thing using good old satyre and a remix. Blogger Markbiwwa alerted us to the alternative version while Mona is moaning about the original back at her hut while doing a Mrs Slocombe, stroking her pussy. We did think that Daphne’s definition of fishpondism was very apt for much of the local scene. Here’s one that wins this months trophy: The One About the Celebs doing the Circus Animal Thingy Protest.
No blogs were harmed in the making of this post. Time to plug the Blogs of Malta network that is back up and running.
Wikileaks. It’s on everyone’s lips and laptops and risks becoming the first real flicker of life in some rudimentary form of global democracy. Or not. Until recently social collaboration and networking had their strongest point in the immediacy of transmission of information. Students rallied in record time and revolutions of the oppressed could be masterminded and managed over twitter and other social networks. Local (and national) scenarios have for some time included information centres that set up as an alternative to the traditional MSM and provide different information to the realities being spun in accordance to tradition (or requirements of the centres of power).
Enter Wikileaks and controversial founder Julian Assange. The man is now the subject of a virtual death warrant. It’s actually an arrest warrant by interpol issued on the basis of an allegation of rape. The timing of the arrest warrant could not have been better fuel for conspiracy theorists – it comes at a moment when Wikileaks is busy embarrassing the world’s largest superpower (at least military). Having said that it is interesting to observe the different stakeholders in the battleground over information sources. Amazon has just dumped Wikileaks from its servers : a clear sign of “go it alone baby”. While the leaking of diplomatic cables and information has been described as life threatening it is also prudent to wonder who or what benefits from these leaks exactly.
In a clearly functioning democracy, of the separation of powers kind, new information thrown into the public domain by third parties can serve to uncover the ruthlessness or corruption that might be setting in at the top. How does that work in a quasi-anarchic global system? Is outing American notions on Berlusconi’s lascivious entertainment preferences of benefit to anyone? I am sure it is but the question is to whom? To the Italian electorate? To the US electorate? And what message does it send to someone in (spin the wheel)… Tajikistan?
The question I am asking here is not so much the black or white “Is the Wikileaks good or bad?” but rather whether such random leakage actually has an effect beyond the sensational. Sure the press will have a free run for a while and the diplomatic centres around the world will have a new topic on their social agenda. Spies have been rendered redundant for a while (a very short while) and so on. But is Assange justified in stating that he has made the US in any way more accountable? On a more local (or national, pace Tonio) scenario you could compare the leaks to the random bandying of information on government contracts: sometimes the bull is hit and things get going. Most times the allegations and hunches serve simply to get the press heated for a little while. My concern is more on how a leak could be channelled to be less of a leak and more of a substantiated form of information that can hit where it hurts if necessary.
Otherwise leaks will just do what leaks always do… create a mess for which nobody is prepared to take responsibility and ones that nobody is prepared to fix. And we’ve got enough of that kind of shit on our hands.
Their words are reported in the brightest of colours because they were not written for public consumption. A locked door is open. As we look inside we discover that one of the revelations about the Wikileaks publications is that they are not revelatory. They confirm publicly available information and take us behind the scenes, like a tour of a theatre for an audience that has already seen the production. If the stories of recent days are reversed, they would have been mind-blowing exclusives: “Mervyn King called for increases in public spending!”; “Israel relaxed about Iran’s nuclear ambitions!” Instead, the mechanism of a leak generates excitement over predictable and unsurprising information. In this case the leak is on such a gargantuan scale that the intake of breath is even greater. But it is the mechanism that is sensational, not the words that arrive as a result.
We’ve had a busy day here in Luxemsnow. In lieu of the daily post I’m sharing an old video of Dario Fo describing the current society of “disinformation”. Normal service will be resumed shortly. “Non si va mai a delle cose vitali…”
An early lament on the death of investigative journalism.
